define bilingual education act

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

Bilingual Education Act

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Bilingual Education Act - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
• Bilingual Education Act - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)

Bilingual Education Act (BEA) , U.S. legislation (January 2, 1968) that provided federal grants to school districts for the purpose of establishing educational programs for children with limited English-speaking ability. It was the first time that the U.S. government officially acknowledged that these students need specialized instruction. The Bilingual Education Act (BEA) was an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

Beginning in the late 19th century, millions of immigrants entered the United States , and many could not speak English. Some state governments pushed for assimilation, requiring non-English-speaking adults to take English-language classes. Children went to public schools, where they were totally immersed in the English language and often punished for speaking their native language. California and Texas established segregated public schools to accommodate the increase in Spanish-speaking children from Mexico . These schools concentrated on teaching English, but they had less funding than the schools for white non-Latino children and thus had inferior resources and underqualified teachers. Under these conditions many immigrant children dropped out or received an education that limited job opportunities.

In the ensuing years there were sporadic efforts to end school segregation, and these intensified in 1946 after a federal court ruled in Mendez v. Westminster that the segregation of Mexican American students in California schools was unlawful. More lawsuits followed, culminating in the landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court found that racial segregation in schools was unconstitutional. This decision helped guide future educational policies toward equal opportunity . The civil rights movement and passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—intending to end discrimination based on race, colour, religion, or national origin—also furthered equality in education.

Despite these developments, language difficulties continued to hamper the education of many Spanish-speaking students. In 1967 U.S. Sen. Ralph Yarborough of Texas introduced a bill to help school districts educate students with limited English-speaking ability. This was a particularly important issue in Texas and other southwestern states, which were experiencing an increase in Mexican immigration. The bill recommended bilingual education—including Spanish and other native languages—and funding was designated for developing programs, training staff, and obtaining educational resources. In 1968 U.S. Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson signed the BEA into law .

Over the years, the BEA underwent various revisions to meet the needs of students, parents, and teachers. For example, when first conceived , the act favoured school districts with high percentages of students from low-income families. Funding was later broadened to include students from a wider range of economic groups. The grants were also expanded to include more options for their use, such as for technical assistance and for the establishment of special training programs.

In January 2002 U.S. Pres. George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act . It sought to improve public primary and secondary schools and, thus, student performance via increased accountability for schools, school districts, and states. For example, states were required to administer yearly tests in reading and mathematics to public school students and to demonstrate adequate progress toward raising the scores of all students. (In 2015 U.S. Pres. Barack Obama signed into law the Every Student Succeeds Act , which modified NCLB.) Under NCLB the BEA became the English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act.

• Fundamentals NEW

• Biographies
• Compare Countries
• World Atlas

Bilingual Education Act

Related resources for this article.

• Primary Sources & E-Books

The Bilingual Education Act (BEA) of 1968 provided federal grants for school districts to establish educational programs for children with limited English-speaking ability. It was the first time that the U.S. government officially acknowledged that these students needed specialized instruction. The BEA was an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the BEA into law on January 2, 1968. Through the years the law went through several updates to meet the changing needs of these students. In 2002 the BEA officially became the English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act.

Beginning in the late 19th century millions of immigrants entered the United States. Many of them could not speak English. Some state governments pushed for assimilation—the process in which individuals or groups of differing ethnic heritage are absorbed into the dominant culture of a society. Those states began to require non-English-speaking adults to take English-language classes. Children went to public schools, where they were totally immersed in the English language and often punished for speaking their native language. California and Texas established segregated public schools to accommodate the increase in Spanish-speaking children from Mexico. These schools concentrated on teaching English, but they had less funding than the schools for white non-Latino children and thus had inferior resources and underqualified teachers. Under these conditions many immigrant children dropped out of school.

In 1954, in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in schools was unconstitutional. This decision helped to guide future educational policies toward equal opportunity. The civil rights movement and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—intending to end discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin—also furthered equality in education.

In 1967 Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas introduced a bill to help school districts educate Spanish-speaking students with limited English-speaking ability. The bill recommended bilingual education (teaching Spanish—or another native language—first, with English as a second language). It was a particularly important issue in Texas (and other southwestern states), which were experiencing an increase in Mexican immigration. Lawmakers expanded the bill to include other native languages, and that version became the BEA. With its passage the federal government intervened for the first time in the education of students who did not speak English as their primary language. The BEA expressed concern for the underachievement of these students. Funding was designated to be used in such areas as developing programs, training staff, and obtaining educational resources.

Over the years various amendments were made to the BEA to meet the needs of students, parents, and teachers. For example, when first conceived, the act favored school districts with high percentages of students from low-income families. Funding was later broadened to include students from a wider range of economic groups. The grants were also expanded to include more options for their use, such as for technical assistance and for the establishment of special training programs.

In January 2002 President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. The law aimed at improving public primary and secondary schools and, thus, student performance. The goal would be accomplished through increased accountability for schools, school districts, and states. For example, states were required to administer yearly tests in reading and mathematics to public school students and to demonstrate adequate progress toward raising the scores of all students. (In 2015 President Barack Obama signed into law the Every Student Succeeds Act, which modified NCLB.) Under NCLB the BEA became the English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act. The act continues to protect immigrant children and children with limited English proficiency in the educational setting.

It’s here: the NEW Britannica Kids website!

We’ve been busy, working hard to bring you new features and an updated design. We hope you and your family enjoy the NEW Britannica Kids. Take a minute to check out all the enhancements!

• The same safe and trusted content for explorers of all ages.
• Accessible across all of today's devices: phones, tablets, and desktops.
• Improved homework resources designed to support a variety of curriculum subjects and standards.
• A new, third level of content, designed specially to meet the advanced needs of the sophisticated scholar.
• And so much more!

Want to see it in action?

Start a free trial

To share with more than one person, separate addresses with a comma

Choose a language from the menu above to view a computer-translated version of this page. Please note: Text within images is not translated, some features may not work properly after translation, and the translation may not accurately convey the intended meaning. Britannica does not review the converted text.

After translating an article, all tools except font up/font down will be disabled. To re-enable the tools or to convert back to English, click "view original" on the Google Translate toolbar.

• Privacy Notice
• Terms of Use

.cls-1{fill:#0966a9 !important;}.cls-2{fill:#8dc73f;}.cls-3{fill:#f79122;}

Your support helps VCU Libraries make the Social Welfare History Project freely available to all. A generous challenge grant will double your impact.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965

By catherine a. paul.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was a cornerstone of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty” (McLaughlin, 1975). This law brought education into the forefront of the national assault on poverty and represented a landmark commitment to equal access to quality education (Jeffrey, 1978). ESEA is an extensive statute that funds primary and secondary education, emphasizing high standards and accountability. As mandated in the act, funds are authorized for professional development, instructional materials, resources to support educational programs, and the promotion of parental involvement. The act was signed into law on April 9, 1965 and its appropriations were to be carried out for five fiscal years. The government has reauthorized the act every five years since its enactment. In the course of these reauthorizations, a variety of revisions and amendments have been introduced. The various subdivisions of the ESEA are designated as titles, followed by a Roman numeral designation.

1965 – 1968

Title I, a provision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, is a program created by the United States Department of Education to distribute funding to schools and school districts with a high percentage of students from low-income families. Title I has received the most attention from policy and lawmakers, as it accounts for 5/6ths of the total funds authorized by the ESEA. In its original conception, Title I was designed to close the skill gap in reading, writing, and mathematics between children from low-income households who attend urban or rural school systems and children from the middle-class who attend suburban school systems (Jeffrey, 1978).

Title II supported school libraries and textbook acquisition for both private and public schools, and it funded preschool programs. Title III, cited as the Adult Education Act of 1966, stated that supplementary educational centers and services would receive funding for additional support services to bolster school attendance. In addition, Title III mandated educational programming even when school was not in session, and it provided for special education and related services in isolated or rural areas. An amendment to the act in 1968 provided the basis for The Bilingual Education Act and the Education of the Handicapped Act. Title IV allocated $100 million over a five year period to fund educational research and training, and Title V supplemented grants created under Public Law 874 to state departments. Lastly, Title VI provided definitions and limitations related to the law (Jeffrey, 1978).

The first five years of the the ESEA demonstrated some inherent issues regarding money, religion, race, and federal-state-local relations within the law, as predicted by the opponents of federal aid. The original hope was that, once schools received money, the school systems would reform and reach out to those children neglected the system for so long. Rather, national priorities shifted, pressure groups splintered, and the political climate changed. While Title I’s gains were modest, hardly living up to the rhetorical claims made during the War on Poverty, they still held value, calling to question what was the best way to get results for the nation’s poor and under-educated (Jeffrey, 1978).

1969 – 2015

A strong critic of the ESEA, President Richard Nixon signed the 1969 ESEA amendments, which included Title II funding for programs for refugee children and children residing in low–rent public housing. Title VI was dedicated to the education of individuals with disabilities, and Title VII bolstered the Vocational Education Act of 1963. Title VIII provided a definition of gifted and talented and established the Teacher Corps (Jeffrey, 1978; Zascavage, 2010).

In 1972, the Educational Amendments of 1972 (Public Law No. 92‑318, 86 Stat. 235) was enacted by Congress as an amendment to the Higher Education Act of 1965, the Vocational Education Act of 1963, the General Education Provisions Act, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Title IX, as this act is commonly known,  is a comprehensive federal law that protects individuals from sex-based discrimination in schools or other federally funded programs.

During the Reagan Administration, Congress passed the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act (ECIA) in 1981 to reduce federal regulations of Title I. This ref lected the administration’s stance that money should be in the hands of states and local jurisdictions rather than at a federal level. Despite these changes outlined by the ECIA and the new designation of Title I as Chapter I, little was done to implement it and traditional Title I practices continued (Zascavage, 2010).

In addition, Reagan’s amendments emphasized bilingual education programming, which was exemplified in Title II. Title VI, The Emergency Immigrant Education Act of 1984, provided financial assistance to states to meet the needs of English language instruction and other bilingual services. Title IV incorporated the Woman’s Educational Equity Amendments of 1984. Title V included the Indian Education Amendments of 1984 (Zascavage, 2010).

Soon, the conversation around Title I shifted from financial regulations to student achievement. In 1988, the Hawkins-Stafford Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Act refocused Title I on cultivating school improvement and excellence program s. The additi ons called for synchrony between Chapter I and classroom instruction, a raise in the achievement standard for low-income students by emphasizing advanced skills rather than basic ones, and increased parental involvement. It also had two new provisions: program improvement and schoolwide projects. Program improvements were modifications that would occur when students who received funding were not im proving. The school wide projects altered the requirement that local funds had to match school wide program funding by Title I, allowing a larg er numb er of high-need schools to implement school wide programming.

The 1993 National Assessment of Title I no ted shortcomings in the Title’s 1980s alterations. These catalyzed the 1994 Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA), which significantly revised the original ESEA. The IASA attempted to coordinate federal resources and policies with the preexisting efforts at the state and local levels to improve instruction for all students. This reform made three major changes to Title I. It added math and reading/language arts standards to be used to assess student progress and provide accountability. It reduced the threshold for schools to implement schoolwide programs from 75 percent poverty to 50 percent and gave schools a longer reign to use federal funding from multiple programs to dispense funds at a school wide level. Lastly, the IASA gave more local control overall so that federal officials and states could waive federal requirements that interfered with school improvements.

The 2001 reauthorization of ESEA under President George W. Bush was known as the No Child Left Behind Act. This reauthorization required increased accountability from schools both from the teachers and from the students. Yearly standardized tests measured how schools were performing against the achievement bars set by Title I. Schools were also responsible for publishing annual report cards that detailed their student achievement data and demographics. Schools were now held accountable not only by punitive measures that would be taken if schools fail to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), but also corrective actions were taken if states did not have an assessment system approved b y Title I. Under NCLB, schools were also required to plan for restructuring if they failed to make AYP for three years after being identified for improvement. More schools took corrective action under NCLB than under IASA. NCLB also required teachers to be highly qualified if hired using Title I funding. By promoting accountability for the achievement of all students, NCLB played an important role in protecting the civil rights of the country’s at-risk students (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). Additionally, the 2001 version of NCLB allowed military recruiters access to 11th and 12th grade students’ names, addresses, and telephone listings when requested (U.S. Department of Education, 2014).

While NCLB helped in closing achievement gaps and mandating transparency, it also had several problematic results. The law created incentives for states to lower their standards, emphasized punishing failure over rewarding success, focused on scores instead of growth and progress, and prescribed a pass-fail, one-size-fits-all series of interventions for schools that miss their state-established goals (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.).

ESEA was reauthorized on December 10, 2015 as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) under President Barack Obama. Under Obama, the law offered flexibility to states from from some of the law’s most cumbersome provisions. In order to qualify for this flexibility, states had to demonstrate that they adopted college and career-ready standards and assessments, implemented school accountability systems that focused on the lowest-performing schools and those with the largest achievement gaps, and ensured that districts were implementing teacher and principal evaluation and support systems (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.).

This work may also be read through the Internet Archive .

For further reading:

For the most recent elementary and secondary education legislation:  The U.S. Department of Education, Laws & Guidance, Elementary & Secondary Education

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act: 40 Years Later, courtesy of the Harvard Graduate School of Education 

Jeffrey, J. (1978). Education for children of the poor: A study of the origins and implementation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

McLaughlin, M. (1975). Evaluation and reform: The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title I. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing Company

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). What is ESEA? [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://blog.ed.gov/2015/04/what-is-esea/

U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Policy guidance – Access to high school students and information on students by military recruiters. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/hottopics/ht-10-09-02a.html

Zascavage, V. (2010). Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In Encyclopedia of Educational Reform and Dissent. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412957403.n149

How to Cite this Article (APA Format):  Paul, C. A. (2016). Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.  Social Welfare History Project . Retrieved   from https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/education/elementary-and-secondary-education-act-of-1965/

11 Replies to “Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965”

[…] Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was originally passed in 1965 as part of the War on Poverty with the intention of providing the schools with large numbers of the neediest students with […]

[…] legislation 1. Social Security 2. The Food Stamp Act 3. The Economic Opportunity Act and 4. ESEA.  ESEA of 1965 was intended to address the high poverty of the poor in America through Title I funding in schools. […]

[…] Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. (n.d.). Retrieved from The Social Welfare History Project: http://www.socialwelfarehistory.com/programs/education/elementary-and-secondary-education-act-of-196&#8230 ; […]

[…] the legacy of ESEA as a civil rights law, this new reauthorization focuses on protecting and serving all students, particularly those from […]

[…] rewrite stays in the war on poverty by demanding that states intervene on the bottom 5 percent of schools based on a preponderance – […]

Yes, as it is noted. Jack Hansan

[…] About ESEA: Roughly 10% of the funding spent on K-12 education by the U.S. Department of Education — largely funneled through ESEA — goes to determine policies that impact everything from teacher certification, school assessment schedules, the types of program funding is spent on, and how much schools must spend in order to access federal funds. […]

[…] Behind” under Bush, then go back to The Department of Education under Carter, then back to the “Elementary and Secondary Education Act” under LBJ., the New Deal under FDR, and the initiation of Progressivism in this country […]

[…] The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 “On April 9, 1965 Congress enacted the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) (P.L. 89-10), the most expansive federal education bill ever passed.  It is significant to note the bill was enacted less than three months after it was introduced. . . This piece of legislation constituted the most important educational component of the “War on Poverty” launched by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Through a special source of funding (Title I), the law allocated large resources to meet the needs of educationally deprived children, especially through compensatory programs for the poor.” The Social Welfare History Project […]

[…] the Title I program subsidizing school districts with a large share of impoverished students, among other provisions. ESEA has since been reauthorized, most recently in the No Child Left Behind […]

Comments for this site have been disabled. Please use our contact form for any research questions.

TOPN: Table of Popular Names

Bilingual education act.

89-10 , title VII, pt. A, Sec. 7101 et seq., as added Pub. L. 103-382, title I, Sec. 101, 1994-10-20, 108 Stat. 3716

An act may refer to only a portion of a Public Law. The tables below are for the entire Public Law.

Why Bilingual Education?

Alternatives to Bilingual Education

Timeline of Bilingual Education

Legislation

Contact Your Congressman

Image Gallery

Bibliography

AC213 Homepage

Legislation Related to Bilingual Education

This page covers the most influential legislation regarding bilingual education in the United States.

• 1906: The Nationality Act (Texas): �Required immigrants to speak English in order to begin the process of becoming naturalized, legitimized the use of language as a mode of exclusion and discrimination.� 40
• Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) and Farrington v. Tokushige (1927): Supreme Court invalidated prohibitions against foreign language instruction in private schools.
• Meyer v. Nebraska: Forbidding the teaching in school of any language other than English until the pupil has passed the eight grade violates the 14th Amendment that guarantees liberty. 28
• Farrington v. Tokushige: Argued against Acts of the Legislature of Hawaii. 29
• Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925): Court invalidated an Oregon Law that had compelled attendance at public schools. Therefore, one can attend private schools.
• Oregon Compulsory Education Act is unreasonable. 30
• Mo Hock Ke Lok Po v. Stainback (1944): Parents have the right to have their children taught in a foreign language. 31
• 1st major educational policy
• Granted financial assistance to the public.
• Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965: provided federal aid for public schools.
• Mid 1960's: Language legislation was given important support by President Johnson's �War on Poverty�.
• 1968 Bilingual Education Act (BEA): Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
• President Lyndon B. Johnson
• First bilingual-bicultural education program at the federal level.
• Supplemental funding for school districts interested in establishing programs to meet the needs of people with limited English abilities.
• Had to be from low-income families.
• Provided funding for planning and developing bilingual education programs as well as training and operation for these programs . 32
• Reasons for the BEA� 35

1.) Growing size of non-English speaking population. 2.) Education was becoming much more important in terms of employment and social mobility than it had even been.

• �Demonstrated program designed to meet the educational needs of low-income, limited English-speaking children.� 36
• Byproduct of the Civil Rights movement.
• Congress wanted to satisfy the social, political, economic, and cultural environments of the U.S.. 41

1.) Failure to provide a systematic means of determining success of programs. 42

• Addressed by the Bilingual Education Act of 1974.
• Eliminated low-income criteria of the 1968 Act.
• Provided a definition of Bilingual education.
• Feedback and progress report must be given.
• Lau v. Nichols (1974): Discrimination among students on account of race or national origin is barred. This case is in direct reference to Chinese-speaking people. 33
• 1975: Office of Civil Rights published the Lau Remedies: guidelines that school districts should follow in order to comply with Lau decision.
• Districts that refused to establish bilingual education programs were no longer eligible for federal funding.
• Replaced by Lau Regulations at the end of the Carter Administration, which was withdrawn in 1981.
• Serna v. Portales Municipal Schools (1974): Court provides an adequate relief program for Spanish-surnamed children. 34
• 1983: Hayakawa founds "U.S. English", a legislative organization.
• By 1998, twenty-five states had made English their official language. 37
• Ron Unz's Proposition 227 (California): the �English for the Children� initiative. This proposition eliminates bilingual education.
• Was passed in 1998, but is still debated today.
• Peaked people's interest in bilingual education. 38
• Passage was a significant event in California 's educational history. 39
• 1999: State initiative in Utah promotes English-only laws in the state government.
• Eliminates teaching students in any other language besides English.
• Eliminated bilingual education in Colorado's public schools.
• Much debate over how helpful this is to non-native English speakers.
• NACBE: National Advisory Council for Bilingual Education.
• OBE: Office of Bilingual Education: reevaluates bilingual education programs

Top of Page

Jump to navigation Jump to Content

• Newsletters

• Supporting ELLs Through COVID-19
• New to Teaching ELLs?
• ELL Glossary
• Special Populations
• Resources by Grade
• ELL Resources by State
• ELL Policy & Research
• ELL News Headlines
• Serving and Supporting Immigrant Students
• Special Education and ELLs
• Social and Emotional Support for ELLs
• ELL School Enrollment
• Bilingual & Dual-Language Education: Overview
• COVID-19 & ELLs
• College Readiness for ELLs
• ELL Program Planning
• Events During the School Year
• Programs for Success
• School Libraries
• ELL Family Outreach
• For Administrators
• For Paraprofessionals
• Supporting Newcomer Students: Resource Gallery
• Creating a Welcoming Classroom
• ELL Classroom Strategy Library
• ELL Strategies & Best Practices
• Language & Vocabulary Instruction
• Literacy Instruction
• Content Instruction for ELLs
• Common Core
• Technology & ELLs
• The Role of ESL Teachers
• Navigating Tough Topics in the Classroom: Tips for ELL Educators
• Help Your Child Learn to Read
• Learning Together at Home
• The Preschool Years
• Schools and Families: An Important Partnership
• School Success
• Raising Bilingual Kids
• Technology at Home
• Resources for Parents of Teens
• Visiting the Public Library
• When Your Children Need Extra Help
• Colorín Colorado Book Finder
• Books for Young Children
• Books for Kids
• Books for Young Adults
• Books for Professionals
• Diverse Books: Resource Guide
• Pura Belpré: Her Life and Legacy
• Literacy Calendar
• Meet the Authors
• Classroom Videos
• Advice for New Teachers of ELLs
• Meet the Experts
• Meet the Administrator
• Facebook Live Series
• PBS Show: Becoming Bilingual
• Being Bilingual Is a Superpower!
• Family Literacy: Multilingual Video Series
• Supporting ELLs During COVID-19: Educator Voices
• Administrators
• Paraprofessionals
• Parents & Families
• ELL Resource Collections
• Guides & Toolkits
• Multilingual Tips for Families
• Reading Tips for Parents (Multilingual)
• Reading Tips for Educators
• Topics A to Z
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Research & Reports
• Web Resources
• Colorín Colorado Blog
• Natural Disaster Resources for Schools
• Responding to a Crisis

Add new comment

The impact of no child left behind on ell education, on this page, no child left behind, title iii: language instruction for lep and immigrant students, acknowledgements.

In this excerpt from Foundations for Teaching English Language Learners: Research, Theory, Policy, and Practice ( Caslon , 2010), Wayne Wright offers an introduction to No Child Left Behind legislation for English language learners, including information on accountability, assessments, English language proficiency standards, and implications for ELL identification and instruction.

In addition, Wright summarizes the landmark Supreme Court Cases that have had significant implications for ELLs in Supreme Court Rulings Regarding English Language Learners .

Federal policy for language-minority students learning English changed dramatically with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) (Public Law 107-110), President George W. Bush's plan for the reauthorization of the ESEA. The following table summarizes some of the major changes of NCLB:

LEP student issues are also featured prominently in changes to Title I, "Improving the Academic Achievement of the Economically Disadvantaged," which addresses issues of accountability and high-stakes testing.

Let us now take a closer look at mandates of NCLB for ELLs in Title III.

Grants & subgrants

Whereas grants under the former Title VII Bilingual Education Act were competitive, Title III provides formula grants to state education agencies. These agencies, in turn, make subgrants to eligible local education agencies (i.e., school districts and charter schools) that apply to the state for the funds. Under Title III, funding for LEP students nearly doubled, and for the first time federal funds for LEP students went to nearly all eligible schools. But because these federal funds are now spread more thinly, fewer dollars are available for each eligible LEP student.

Language instruction

Unlike recent versions of the Bilingual Education Act, Title III does not make any distinctions between bilingual and nonbilingual programs. The federal law now requires only that LEP students be placed in "language instruction education programs," defined as an instructional course:

• in which a limited English proficient child is placed for the purpose of developing and attaining English proficiency, while meeting challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards; and
• that may make instructional use of both English and a child's native language to enable the child to develop and attain English proficiency, and may include the participation of English proficient children if such course is designed to enable all participating children to become proficient in English and a second language. (NCLB §3301(8))

Thus, any program for LEP students must meet only two requirements:

• teach English, and
• teach academic content, as outlined in state English language proficiency (ELP) and academic standards.

Instruction in the native language is optional. This option, without referring to transitional bilingual education or dual language programs by name, nonetheless makes allowances for these types of programs. Title III gives the ultimate authority to each state to determine what programs it will and will not support.

State plans and laws

To receive Title III funds, school districts must submit plans to the state, which in turn must submit plans to the U.S. Department of Education. In these plans, school districts and their states must describe how they are "using a language instruction curriculum that is tied to scientifically based research on teaching LEP children and that has been demonstrated to be effective … in the manner the eligible entities determine to be the most effective" (NCLB §3301(b)(6)).

The law also stipulates that none of the requirements of Title III "shall be construed to negate or supersede State law" (NCLB §3126). As a result, in states with laws restricting bilingual education, schools cannot use the allowances for bilingual education in Title III to offer such programs unless they meet their state law's waiver requirements. At the same time, states that mandate bilingual programs may continue to provide those programs.

Discussion of bilingualism and additional factors

Also unlike Title VII, Title III includes no recognition of the personal and societal benefits of bilingual education and bilingualism. Nor is there any acknowledgment of the factors that have negatively impacted the education of LEP students, such as segregation, improper placement in special education, and underrepresentation of LEP students in gifted and talented education and shortages of bilingual teachers. Not addressed are issues of cultural differences or the need for multicultural understanding.

Focus on English proficiency

The sole focus of Title III is English. The list of purposes stresses repeatedly that Title III funds and programs are to "ensure that LEP students attain English proficiency, develop high levels of academic attainment in English, and meet the same challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards as all children are expected to meet" and to assist state and local education agencies in creating "high quality instructional programs" that prepare LEP students to "enter all-English instruction settings" (NCLB §3102).

Another stated purpose of Title III is "to hold State educational agencies, local educational agencies, and schools accountable for increases in English proficiency and core academic content knowledge" of LEP students by requiring "demonstrated improvements in the English proficiency" and "adequate yearly progress" on state academic achievement tests (NCLB §3102(8)).

Earlier identification practices

Before the passage of NCLB, each state set its own policies on how to identify LEP students. In most states, at the time of initial school enrollment, schools would administer a home language survey to determine whether students come from a household with a "primary home language other than English" (PHLOTE). School districts were then required to assess PHLOTE students with an ELP test to identify LEP students. Decisions about which test to use among many on the market were frequently made at the district level. There is great variability among the tests and from one district to the next and one state to the next in assessments used and procedures followed to identify and report the number of LEP students. Even at the national level, attempts to measure the national LEP student population accurately prove problematic because of the lack of data and inconsistencies among data sets.

Standards and assessments

NCLB requires each state to develop ELP standards and ELP assessments designed to measure LEP students' progress in meeting those standards (NCLB §3102(8)). The standards and assessments must be based on "the four domains of speaking, reading, listening, and writing," and assessments must also include the domain of "comprehension" as exhibited through listening and reading (U.S. Department of Education, 2003a, p. 5). In addition, the standards established for each grade level must identify benchmarks for ELL students at different levels of English proficiency. Each state's ELP standards must have the following components (p. 8):

• "A label for each level (e.g., Beginning, Intermediate, Advanced)"
• "A brief narrative description that suggests the defining characteristics of the level"
• "A description of what students can do in content at this level of English language proficiency"
• "An assessment score that determines the attainment of the level"

Most of the language proficiency assessments that states and school districts were using when NCLB went into effect did not meet these requirements, and thus new statewide ELP standards and assessments had to be developed. Many states struggled to fully comply with the requirements by the deadlines.

English-Language Proficiency (ELP) standards

Just as other professional content-area organizations, such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the National Science Teachers Association, and the National Association for Music Education have created their own set of model content-area standards that states adopted or adapted, Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) had created its own set of model standards in 1997. TESOL educators, however, recognized the need to substantially modify its original standards to meet the NCLB mandates, particularly the requirement for ELLs to meet the same academic content standards as native English speakers. TESOL's new ELP standards were completed in 2006 (TESOL, 2006a).

The result is the set of five standards, discussed in Chapter 2, that address the teaching of ESL and the teaching of the academic content-areas of language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies to ELLs. As required of each state by NCLB, the TESOL standards identify and label each level of ELP and list the defining characteristics of each level. TESOL identifies five levels of English language proficiency (levels 1-5) with the following labels: Starting, Emerging, Developing, Expanding, and Bridging. The description of each level appears in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 TESOL ELP Standards: Levels of English Language Proficiency

Source: TESOL, 2006a.

The TESOL ELP standards are further organized into five grade clusters: pre-K-K, 1-3, 4-5, 6-8, and 9-12. Each of the proficiency standards is organized along the four traditional language domains — listening, speaking, reading and writing — lwith sample performance indicators. While TESOL's new ELP standards share many of the same problems as those for the content-area standards described later in this chapter, they can be of great benefit as a general guide to content-area teachers as well as traditional ESL teachers. In particular, these standards are useful in helping teachers to understand what can reasonably be expected of ELLs at various levels of English proficiency.

WIDA Consortium

The demands of NCLB for the creation of aligned ELP standards and assessments have been especially difficult for smaller and less populated states with relatively low numbers of ELL students. Nineteen* of these states — Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Maine, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin — as well as the District of Columbia — have formed the World-class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) consortium for the joint development of resources to comply with the demands of NCLB.

The WIDA consortium designed and implemented ELP standards and an accompanying language proficiency assessment, marketed as ACCESS for ELLs, which has been touted as a model for the rest of country. Indeed, TESOL's ELP standards build on the work of the WIDA consortium and are officially subtitled "An Augmentation of the WIDA English Language Proficiency Standards" (TESOL, 2006a). The WIDA consortium has also developed Spanish language arts standards and is developing alternate academic assessments for beginning ELLs that meet the mandates of NCLB. It is at the forefront of efforts to make the accountability demands of NCLB feasible for ELLs and is breaking new ground in the area of standards and testing for ELLs. The consortium's Web site, www.wida.us, provides detailed information on these efforts.

ELP assessments

According to NCLB, ELP assessments must be given annually to all LEP students enrolled in schools in every state. Local school districts receiving Title III funds are required to submit an evaluation of their programs for LEP students every 2 years to the state indicating each student's current status and progress in learning English, attaining proficiency in English, and passing the state's content-area tests.

Results of the ELP assessments are a part of each state's accountability system. Each state must establish baseline data and then set annual measurable achievement objectives (AMAOs) to hold school districts accountable for the progress of LEP students in attaining proficiency in English. School districts' adequate yearly progress (AYP) in achieving Title III AMAOs is determined by "annual increases in the number or percentage of children making progress in learning English" and "annual increases in the number or percentage of children attaining English proficiency by the end of each school year" (NCLB §3122(a)(3)). In addition, AMAOs under Title III includes LEP students meeting the AYP requirements under Title I. Title III outlines serious consequences for districts that fail to make AYP related to LEP student's progress and attainment of ELP. These consequences range from requiring districts to develop and follow an improvement plan to replacing district educators and cutting off Title III funding.

Back to top

Our policy section is made possible by a generous grant from the Carnegie Corporation. The statements and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the authors.

Wright, W. E. (2010). Foundations for Teaching English Language Learners: Research, Theory, Policy, and Practice. Excerpt from Chapter 3, "Language and Education Policy for ELLs." (pp. 59-63). © Caslon Publishing. Printed with permission, all rights reserved.

Cardenas, J. A., & Cardenas, B. (1977). The theory of incompatibilities: A conceptual framework for responding to the educational needs of Mexican American children . San Antonio, TX: Intercultural Development Research Association.

Del Valle, S. (2003). Language rights and the law in the United States: Finding our voices . Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America . New York: Crown.

Lyons, J. (1995). The past and future directions of federal bilingual education policy. In O. García & C. Baker (Eds.), Policy and practice in bilingual education: Extending the foundations (pp. 1-15). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Tamura, E. H. (1993). The English-only effort, the anti-Japanese campaign, and language acquisition in the education of Japanese Americans in Hawaii, 1914-1940. History of Education Quarterly, 33 (1), 37-58.

TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages). (2006a). PreK-12 English language proficiency standards . Alexandria, VA: Author.

Trujillo, A. (2008). Latino civil rights movement. In J. M. González (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Bilingual Education (pp. 505-510). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

U.S. Department of Education. (2003a). Non-regulatory guidance on the Title III State Formula Grant Program. Part II: Standards, assessments, and accountability . Washington, DC: Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students.

Wiley, T. G. (1998). The imposition of World War I era English-only policies and the fate of German in North America. In T. Ricento & B. Burnaby (Eds.), Language and politics in the United States and Canada: Myths and realities (pp. 211-241). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

*19 as of this publication. In January 2012, there are currently 27 member states, and 3 states have adopted the WIDA English Language Proficiency Standards but do not participate in other Consortium activities.

More by this author

• Beware of the VAM: Valued-Added Measures for Teacher Accountability
• Landmark Court Rulings Regarding English Language Learners

Related Content

• Roger Rosenthal: FAQ on Enrolling Immigrant Students
• Foundations for Teaching English Language Learners: Research, Theory, Policy, and Practice
• Roger Rosenthal: Regulations for ELL Education
• Is the programming for ELLs effective?

Most Popular

10 Strategies for Building Relationships with ELLs

Culturally Responsive Instruction for Holiday and Religious Celebrations

Language Objectives: The Key to Effective Content Area Instruction for English Learners

12 Ways Classroom Teachers Can Support ELLs

Karie Mize replied on Wed, 2012-02-15 00:31 Permalink

My colleagues and I at Western Oregon University use this text for a Foundations of ESOL/Bilingual Education, and I appreciate Dr. Wright's thoroughness!

More information about text formats

• No HTML tags allowed.
• Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
• Lines and paragraphs break automatically.